It's Black History Month, So Let's Honestly Discuss Race

Well, maybe....

A friend took affront at something written by Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts, Jr., back in 2003, namely:

The GOP is never comfortable discussing race, unless you count the thinly veiled appeals Republican candidates have sent to racists in the white South over the years.

My friend prepared a response that is still germane today. Like many similar letters-to-the-editor, the response isn't profound. Nevertheless, I post it, because flawed as it is, many people think along these lines.

Mr. Pitts: I am writing to rebut/complain/whine about your column regarding an “open” letter to Senator Bill Frist, which was published in the newspaper on January 6, 2003.

Before I get to the rebuttal, let me say that I have been reading your column regularly since the Chronicle picked it up perhaps a year ago, and my overall opinion of your work is high. Most of your columns are thoughtful, measured, and lacking the shrillness apparent in some pundits’ writings. The column in question is an exception for you, an openly partisan piece, and misrepresents the Republican party, perhaps knowingly so. That is why I am moved to respond.

The central portion of your column correctly notes one of the very core Republican beliefs, the “rising tide” metaphor – that by promoting laissez-faire capitalism for all, we create an environment which provides the greatest good for the greatest number with respect to pursuit of happiness, but you seem to imply at the same time that this belief is falsely held, that we don’t really believe in our core value. Get a grip, Leonard. Maybe our world view is right, maybe it is wrong, but please don’t say that we secretly disbelieve our own convictions.

Next you correctly point out that while black quality of life has been improving, it still lags the quality of life for whites. No argument there. You also attribute the gap to race. I agree with you, and think that most conservatives also agree.

The core of my complaint is the following text, which says that “the GOP is never comfortable discussing race”, and discusses “the GOP’s racial pandering (as if Democrats don’t), insensitivity, and silence”. All this is true. However, the reasons for this are very different than you make them out to be.

You don’t exactly say why the GOP is never comfortable discussing race. Perhaps you think Republicans want to keep the black man down, or that we believe black poverty is an acceptable price to pay for white wealth, or perhaps that we are genuinely perplexed at the failure of our world view in much of the black community. Maybe you think it’s all of the above. I’ll tell you why we are uncomfortable discussing race, although I think that you may already know.

Republicans and Democrats have contrasting world views; that is why they are adversaries. Republicans tend to believe that a person’s fate is largely in his own hands; Democrats tend to think that a man’s life is shaped largely by his environment or other external factors. Examples of this dichotomy are everywhere: who thinks homosexuality is a choice, and who thinks it is genetics? Who thinks the unemployed don’t look hard enough for work, and who thinks they are passive victims of circumstance? Who thinks criminals are 100% accountable for their deeds, and who wants to consider their childhood experiences as mitigating factors? To put it simply, Republicans emphasize free will; Democrats emphasize determinism.

Republicans believe they know why the black boats don’t rise so high, although they truly are never comfortable discussing it in public. In keeping with the Republican world view of free will, Republicans think that black poverty is no longer due primarily to external racism (although of course it was once, prior to about 1970), but rather is a predictable consequence of behaviors and values held by many blacks; in other words, black poverty in 2003 is largely a result of choices made by the formulators of modern black culture. “The government owes me a living. The government owes me reparations. I’m entitled to welfare, to public housing, to set-asides. Only Uncle Toms study and do homework. Colin Powell is no better than a slave because he takes orders from a white man.” I’ve listened to enough hip-hop music when I lived in Baltimore to have a good idea of urban black values: exaggerated self-importance, keeping three bitches but marrying none, and murder for fun. To me, the defining moment of modern black culture was when Biggie Smalls and Tupac Shakur had each other murdered because of, because of, what reason exactly? In all of human history, of all the various corners of the world, the only musicians to fight wars with each other are current-day African-American cultural leaders. The values and behaviors of these people are truly unfortunate. To one who believes that a man’s destiny is governed by his own values and behaviors, to one who believes that free will is more important than determinism, the low state of the black boats today is no mystery.

As thinking men, you and I both know that our lives are shaped not entirely by our own free will, but also not entirely by external factors. Both are important. Republicans are partly right, and partly wrong. Democrats, too, are partly right, and partly wrong. What is the true mix? Is it 80/20? 50/50? 20/80? Nobody knows. Surely this question can be an honest point of dialogue, surely reasonable men should be able to talk about this very important issue, and express varying opinions without fear of reprisal. Don’t you agree, Mr. Pitts?

But the problem, the reason why the GOP is never comfortable discussing race, is that in our present cultural climate, it is not possible for a white man to publicly discuss the low black boats in terms of a consequence of African-American values or behaviors. It doesn’t matter if the opinion is honestly held, it doesn’t matter if it expressed considerately and respectfully, it doesn’t matter if the speaker backs up his opinions with data, it doesn’t matter if the opinion is true. Any prominent white man who talks like this in public risks having his reputation destroyed immediately. No honest discussion about the relative influence of free will (choices made by blacks) versus determinism (discrimination by whites) is possible today in America, unless the speaker takes the determinism viewpoint. We have been living in a “McCarthy Era” on this subject for the past quarter century. Democrats, the press, and black leaders are the enforcers. If a white man believes that free choices made by blacks are at least partially responsible for black poverty, he will never be comfortable discussing race, if he values his career. This is the situation that Republicans are in, by virtue of their defining core value of free will. Leonard, as a black, a member of the press, and (I presume) a Democrat, you are three times a member of the enforcer class. You cannot possibly be unaware of the McCarthyism ruling public speech today; therefore you were intellectually dishonest in this column.

Try this thought experiment for me: imagine a white conservative candidate addressing a black church or convention, and suggesting that an ethic of entitlement, the practice of having children without marriage, together with a disdain for education, might be contributing factors to black failure. How would he be received? I believe he would be booed off the stage, he would not be permitted to finish his speech, and he might be physically attacked on the spot. If you think I exaggerate, please tell me. Is it really hard to understand why Republicans don’t contribute to what passes for a national dialogue on race?

As a final beef against your Frist column, I will point out your discussion, towards the end, of who is or is not vindicated by history. You said that you cannot think of a single example where conservatives were on the right side of history on a racial issue. The way I see it, the two parties in the long term take turns being the good guys. The Republican party was founded in order to advance black civil rights; their positions were vindicated by history from 1854 up through about 1910. Starting in the 1940s, it was Democrats who took positions for awhile that have been vindicated by history. However, note that all the examples of Democrat vindication which you cited -- military desegregation, bus boycott, Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act, Brown vs Board of Education -- all of these came from an extremely narrow period of only 19 years, between 1946 and 1965. As far as vindication by history on racial issues, I believe the Republicans resumed their turn in the 1970s.

The Democratic and black leadership’s concept of cradle-to-grave welfare entitlement will not be vindicated by history. The concept of race-based college admissions will not be vindicated by history. The idea that lesser-qualified blacks should get jobs in preference to more-qualified whites will not be vindicated by history. McCarthyism will not be vindicated by history. Finally, the unanimous exultation of the African-American community at the acquittal of O.J. Simpson will not be vindicated by history.

Please try another thought experiment: imagine a white man who firmly believes that society should be colorblind; that men should be judged only by their merits, abilities, and accomplishments, but never by the color of their skin. This man refuses to countenance any government policy or social practice which favors one race over the other. This position will be vindicated by history. In 1960, such a man would march with Martin Luther King. However, the same exact man, today, would be called a racist by King’s protégé Jesse Jackson. Democrats, liberals, and black leaders lost their claim to historic vindication when they quit their “justice for all” objective and began working the black community the same way Republicans work the gun lobby – as a favored special interest group.

Mr. Pitts, in conclusion I want to emphasize again that I respect the majority of your newspaper pieces, and I feel that you are a reasonable man. I realize that you might be offended by some things written here; that is not my intent. However, you wrote an unfair, openly partisan column, so I feel you deserve a candid response. Please do not quote me by name.

So, what is my take?

In order to have an honest discussion, it is important not to deliberately insult the other party. What conservatives often interpret as political correctness gone amok is often just an attempt to preserve a public space where people can speak freely. The media, Democrats, and black leaders will pounce on openly racist caricatures, and grumble about "dog-whistle" messages that speak only to conservatives (e.g., G.W. Bush speaking of the 'Dred Scott' case during the 2004 debates with John Kerry). If one can't express oneself without running afoul of the language police, then it may signify another problem.

Actually I believe most black audiences would be receptive to a white political candidate who suggested that the blame for most black problems lay in the black community, provided the criticism was not condemnatory and insulting. After all, Bill Clinton was able to walk this line. The trouble is that context matters, and most conservatives can't do it successfully, because they have other interests in mind. Lowering tax rates does little for those who don't pay much in taxes, or who benefit disproportionately from government spending, for example.

I'm troubled by the paragraph where "current-day African-American cultural leaders" are essentially equated with hip hop musicians. This is an exaggeration, leaving out black pastors and a host of community organizers that collectively dwarf the impact of the (admittedly influential) hip hop musicians (many of whom are just as popular among whites as blacks).

The caricature of black attitudes (even placed in quotation marks) "The government owes me a living, ..." etc. is an attitude I think few blacks actually have. It is an attitude that is more-common on the urban street, which is multi-racial in nature. But even there, it isn't that common. For example, most of the homeless folks I've dealt with (I hire them sporadically for a variety of household tasks) do not have this attitude. Even as they fall short, their ideal is to prize labor and scorn sloth: much like the rest of society.

One trouble with laissez faire capitalism is that it is not as independent of culture and history as it's proponents would like to believe. Laissez-faire is an ideal condition rarely reached in human experience.

The Chinese and the Jews have long fostered strong merchant traditions, which derive ultimately from the tradition of book-learning: learning done originally for primarily religious purposes, but adapted for other needs. Malaysians or African Americans engage in capitalism at an initial disadvantage because of the absence of the merchant tradition, and that can't be made up for quickly.

For example, a young American Jew (or Chinese) might have several people in his immediate family that have either owned a business, or served in an important capacity in a business, so dinner-table talk tends to be dominated by discussions about market trends, money issues, etc. - conversations that are largely-absent in other households. So, in a fledgling business, the young American Jew is likely to have a variety of resources and experiences available to him that his African American (or Malay) counterpart does not. The ultimate effect is a higher business success rate.

Americans in general have a very hard time speaking honestly about race, and that is because we often speak without much reflection, in caricatures.

What would Tupac say?:

If I could recelect before my hood dayz
I'd sit and reminisce, nigga and bliss on the good dayz
i stop and stare at the younger, my heart goes to'em
They tested, it was stressed that they under
In our days, things changed
Everyone's ashamed to the youth cuz the truth looks strange
And for me it's reversed, we left them a world that's cursed, and it hurts
cause any day they'll push the button
and yall condemned like Malcolm x and Bobby Hunton, died for nothin
Don't them let me get teary, the world looks dreary
but when you wipe your eyes, see it clearly
there's no need for you to fear me
if you take the time to hear me, maybe you can learn to cheer me
it aint about black or white, cuz we're human
I hope we see the light before its ruined
my ghetto gospel